I am a parent PF judge, and a practicing attorney with more than 25 years of experience.

I believe a sound debate is about a fair, intelligible and intelligent dialogue. Speed reading off a computer screen or spreading is incompatible with such a process. Fast speakers assume the risk that I could miss some arguments/points/evidence. Additionally, if in my view you've spoken at a fast clip, I will not view unfavorably your opponent failing to respond to an argument that you have advanced.

Do not resort to speech docs. Make your case orally.

I flow arguments and strictly rely on my flowsheet. While I do not take note of points made/unmade in crossfire, I pay careful attention to astute questions and answers. Please bring up crossfire points that you would like me to flow in a subsequent speech. I am persuaded by well-structured, logical and linked arguments that are honestly supported by key pieces of evidence.

In addition to making your case, you must meaningfully engage with your opponents' case. The team advancing a contention must rejoin the issue and tell me why the opposing team's rebuttal/counter/block does not work.

In crossfire, please avoid questions with long preambles.

While, for the most part, I don't get into the weeds with cards and evidence, I may on occasion call for a piece. Teams should feel free to assail each other's evidence during the debate.

Please do not use debate jargon.

I do not like theory and K's. Hew to the topic of the day.

Keep the discourse civil. Incivility in any form will hurt your cause.

Enthusiasm for, intensity, and passion regarding the proposition you are espousing is welcome. Discourtesy or aggression against your opponents is not.

Tactical and strategic thinking in arguing, rebutting, and in crossfire is always delightful.

I appreciate clear analysis of why your contention should win the day in the summary and final focus. Further, the final focus should have all that you would like me to vote on (akin to writing my RFD for me - pros of your case and cons of your opponent's.) Lastly, all arguments and evidence that are in the final focus must have been in the summary and no new arguments in the summary speech - it is a matter of fairness.

Happy debating!

Hi! I’m a parent judge and look forward to hearing your cases. Please speak clearly and respect your opponents.

● I am a volunteer judge for Wilcox HS and this is my first year of judging.

● Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help anyone.

● Keep your own time.

● Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

● Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. Keep it simple.

● I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

● Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

When I judge a debate, I look for the team that is the most prepared and the most convincing. Bonus if you are composed, speak clearly, and are quick on your feet.

Make sure you speak clearly and address all contentions and subpoints when defending and attacking cases. If you are speaking too fast and I am unable to flow it then I will be unable to weigh it as strongly. Explicit signposting and road mapping is always appreciated. Treat everyone with respect and be kind and courteous during the round.

1. While I am relatively new to the world of Speech and Debate, I have coached Mock Trial/Moot Court for nearly fifteen years. My teams have won numerous state championships, placing in the top ten at nationals on more than one occasion.

2. Given my background, I tend to prefer substance over form. I also believe that how you say something matters. While the content of your argument is paramount (in my opinion), you should consider framing your argument in a way that is organized and easy to follow.

3. I will attempt to flow the round (on my computer), but I am a lay judge. I understand that time is limited, but I am not impressed by fast-talkers. Spreading may be commonplace nowadays, but it’s counterproductive if the judge can’t follow your argument.

4. I also believe that debate should be an exercise in good sportsmanship. As a longtime Mock Trial coach, I support an aggressive cross examination. That being said, I expect both parties to be respectful throughout the round, especially during cross.

Prefers to hear all sides and great if speaks clearly and thanks you and good luck!

Hello!

I debated public forum for all 4 years and was captain of Eagan High School pf debate.

Couple things to know about me:

I am currently a Junior at the University of Minnesota studying History with a minor in Chicanx studies.

I believe public forum is the most accessible form of debate meaning anyone should be able to come into the round and understand what is going on. It is an art form to be able to put complex topics into accessible words for the public to understand.

Therefore, go slow and dont be disrespectful. I strongly prefer traditional pf, if you do anything more you risk me losing you on the flow but I am able to handle someee speed.

I am against inaccessible academia and believe if you are using jargon (includes theory and Ks), you are doing pf wrong.

I make sure I listen intently on the summary speech as I was a second speaker in Highschool.

High school debate should to be a place where no one feels attacked. do not run anything sexist, racist, queerphobic, transphobic, classist, etc.

Remember: its just debate! use debate for experience and to expand your knowledge :)

Debated PF for four years for Dalton. A few things I would like to see in round:

1. Weigh. Almost every judge puts this on their paradigm for a reason. If you don't tell me how to evaluate the round I'll have to evaluate the round using my own mechanism and you may not like it. Also, if the other team also does weighing, don't just bring up your weighing - explain why I should prefer your weighing mechanism over theirs.

2. Signpost well. It'll make it easier for me to follow your arguments.

3. Create a narrative. Don't just give me 5 different cards and say that's why we win the round. Work the cards into a cohesive narrative or argument that will persuade me.

4. Logical responses. Not every response needs to be a card dump. Those who can give me well warranted responses with evidence to go along with it that make sense to me will fare well.

5. Be careful of running theories or k's on me. My understanding of them is limited.

6. I DO NOT believe tech > truth. What this means is don't run any arguments that you know make absolutely zero sense in reality in front of me, even if you have some obscure source claiming it so. I like creative link chains but there is a limit. ***TO CLARIFY*** I've seen some concern that by this I mean I want arguments to be 100% true - this is not the case at all. I just want don't want arguments to be 100% not true - I can accept arguments that I know won't happen but sound plausible or even sort of possible. Basically just be wary about running nuke war -> extinction in front of me.

Debate was by far my favorite activity in high school, and sometimes a bad or good judge could really define the round experience for me. If there's any questions you have or anything you would like me to know to help me be the best judge for you just let me know before the round. Please also be respectful to your opponents both in and out of round. Above all, have fun!!!! This is a high school activity; sometimes we forget that(I know I did).

Hello!

I am a parent judge. Please don't speak too quickly, I will try to flow but I am not very experienced. I understand most terms and arguments so no need to simplify terms. I also do not flow crossfires.

Hi all, I am a current senior at Regis HS in NYC and have done PF all four years of high school. I also have some experience in Parliamentary debate.

Judging-wise, I'm mostly non-interventionist, but if something you're saying is blatantly false, well if your opponents so much as say that's dumb, I won't consider the argument.

I am like "truth = tech," they are both about equal to me. Explain every argument so that anyone could understand it; don't just cite some sketchy website you found seven pages into a Google search. Also, if there are conflicting cards, don't just try to shout yours louder, spend extra time breaking down why yours is right. No matter what your argument is be prepared to defend it, I genuinely don't have a preference between logic and cards, so long as you can explain your cards and not just give me numbers. If you can't explain them I will be less inclined to vote for you. Unexplained cards only trump weak logic, so be prepared to defend and explain without relying on only evidence.

Be nice to each other

If you're funny, your speaker points will get a boost, remember at the end of the day this is about having fun.

Have some fun, sarcasm will almost always be accepted as a form of humor. - This line of my paradigm seems to have recently been ignored by debaters. Please don't ignore it. I want to have some fun.

We're here to debate the given resolution. Don't run any arguments that don't directly address it (i.e. no theory).

Ask me anything before or during the round (though no promises I'll answer (see above: "non-interventionist")).

Spreading: I can understand fast speech so you should be fine. However, if I miss an argument or one of your points because of it that is on you.

Off-Time Road Maps: Just don't, I am a senior in high school and I have done debate all four years from novice as a freshman to varsity now, I know what you are going to do and you shouldn't need one. If you do one, I will tank your speaks.

Please try to be early! That way we can start early, and it gives me more time to write an RFD and helpful feedback. (Plus I think we all want to be able to move on quicker, and end earlier than everyone else).

I also will give low-point wins. I think that its a really helpful tool in Public Forum.

Lastly, I believe disclosure is extremely important in Public Forum, so I disclose

(By the way, if you want more in-depth stuff that I don't really want to get into, see Tommy Barone's paradigm. Much more "debatey" than this one and I basically agree with it all.)

And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
Someday

I was walking with my brother
and he wondered what's on my mind
I said, What I believe in my soul
ain't what I see with my eyes
And we can't turn our backs this time

I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my country is all I know
I want to be with my family
people who understand me
I've got nowhere else to go

And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
Someday

If you read all of that, the song, and Tommy Barone's paradigm, let me know and I'll give you +1 speaker points

And I was talking with my sister
she looked so fine
I said, Baby, what's on your mind
She said, I want to run like the lion
released from the cages
Released from the rages
burning in my heart tonight, yeah

And I ain't no Communist and I ain't no Capitalist
And I ain't no Socialist and I ain't no Imperialist
And I ain't no Democrat so I ain't no Republican
I only know one party and it is freedom

I am, I am, I am
I am a patriot and I love my country
Because my county is all I know

And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
Someday

And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
And the river opens for the righteous
I want to run like the lion
Released from the cages
Released from the rages
I said what I believe in my soul
Ain't what I see with my eyes
Someday
Someday
Someday
Someday
Someday

The righteous lion will win

I am a parent judge and a lay judge. Please keep your speaking speed reasonable and be clear.

I am a parent judge who has judged my older son and my sophomore over the past four years and have some experience judging public forum and Lincoln Douglas debate format.

There are several items that I would encourage the debaters to do:

1. Make eye contact with me and look me in the eye, I wont bite.
2. Smile. Have fun and enjoy yourself.
3. Take breath, relax
4. Speak slowly! Be clear, confident and don’t rapid fire your sentences
5. Make clear arguments. Try to make me understand your points and arguments
6. Be animated. Use your hands, fluctuate your voice to get your points across

Good Luck Debating.

Princeton: Please note this will be my first time judging public forum. In terms of my debate experience, I did policy debate all through high school and am currently competing in british parli.

PF specific:

- I am obviously familiar with policy style aspects of debate. This means, you can read a kritik or theory and I will be able to give you advice and understand what you are doing. However, if you read policy arguments just to confuse your opponent and badly present these arguments I will drop your speaker points/ or drop you.

- You can speak at a relatively faster than normal pace but don't spread. (unless both teams are comfortable with spreading, otherwise this just becomes an exclusionary practice that does not need to be in PF)

- Write my ballot for me -- meaning, tell me why your impacts outweigh, what exactly I should be voting on in the round i.e. what is the question of the debate which you believe you answer better than the opponent.

- Please sign post and follow the flow. If you jump all over the place it will be harder for me to follow where in the round we are. The more clear you are the easier it is for me to flow, the better my flow, the easier my decision will be.

- tech > truth unless you are clearly misrepresenting a piece of evidence which will require me to call for that evidence and then possibly change my decision.

- I will lower speaks and/or drop you if you say anything blatantly hateful. Use common sense. I enjoy intense debates, but please, just be civil and nice towards one another.

Feel free to email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or after the round: manon.fuchs@duke.edu

I am a parent judge and this is my first year judging. Speak slowly and clearly with a respectful tone. Keep your own time. Off time road maps are preferred. Stay away from overtly technical, high-leveled debate jargon. I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points. Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

I graduated from Cornell University with a degree in Policy Analysis & Management. I have minimal debate experience, so please prioritize clarity over speed and assume I know little about the topic.

Be sure to explain acronyms and avoid unnecessarily complex jargon. Above all, be professional.

Hi Everyone,

My name is Kumsa Kenenisa, and I am a parent judge.

I'm a very lay judge

Please read at a decently low speed

Please explain your arguments clearly and give me a reason to vote for you (weigh)

Please don't spread, as I most likely won't understand what you are saying

I don't think that this will be an issue, but please don't run K's or theory in my round

^^all written by her kid so don't assume she knows any of this jargon lol

^^also plz don't ask for disclosure b/c my mom is already confused enough lol sorry

No need to be too slow, but speak clearly so I can understand you. If I cannot understand what you're saying, I can't evaluate the argument.

During crossfire, if one side asks the other a question, do not interrupt the other side when they are giving an answer.

Advocate your position through logical reasoning and support it by presenting evidence clearly.

Hi - I went to high school in China and debated LD, PF, and BP in nat circuits. I'm now at NYU.

Feel free to email me before-round about any questions or clarification, email is at the bottom of this :)

Paradigm:

TL;DR Version:

I learn more towards traditional than I do progressive/circuit, but I don't prefer one type of debate over the other. I'm completely ok with fast speaking, but prefer that you don't spread - if you have to in order to fit your case in, that's fine, but please send me your cards before the debate starts. I'm not the best at judging Ts or spikes. I will judge anything you throw at me - I don't inherently like or dislike anything in the realm of debate, so run whatever argument you feel comfortable with. That being said, please make it as easy as possible for me to understand.

ONLINE DEBATE: If you have a pet, show me and I'll bump your speaks by 0.2 for each animal :)

LONG VERSION:

Theory Debates:

As long as it isn't a "my version of this is better than your version" of this without engagement on your opponent's points, I'm open to it and enjoy a good theory clash. Please carry your arguments throughout the entire debate (recap at the 2AR/ 1NR). That said, a well-fleshed out traditional debate is just as good, and can also win the ballot. I don't have a preference.

Nuance:

Technical or political language that isn't considered "common knowledge" should be quickly explained. I cannot judge a concept or evidence that I don't understand. Any important terms/theories/background info should be explained in a formal "speech" - it should not only be explained on the off-chance it's brought up in CX.

Frameworks:

I view the framework as the structure that an entire team's arguments should be based around. I view being able to support your own framework to be just as important as knocking down your opponent's. Tearing holes in the other team's frameworks while being unable to defend your own will not earn you full points from me.

CX:

I don't flow CX. If there's something you want to emphasize, bring it up in the 1NC or 1AR.

VI/RoB:

*Please* do this. It makes the debate much easier for me to judge, allows the debaters to frame things in a way that ultimately helps them, and just makes life much much easier.... please do it T.T

Evidence Ethics:

Demonstrated transgression of evidence ethics warrants an automatic loss.

Email is kathy.liu@nyu.edu. I'm in China so Gmail lags a bit sometimes - for as long as we are online, the NSDA Dropbox thing might be the fastest way.

Looking for effective, concise arguments.

Looking for clear articulate speaking.

Looking to feel the powerful energy behind your delivery.

Keep track of your own and opponent's time.

I am a flay judge with a little over 10 years experience judging and coaching. I didn't do debate in high school or college, but I have really enjoyed it on the judging side, and I have learned a great deal. Having said that:

1. I prefer arguments to technicalities. Debates about debate are not great.

2. If you are participating in an evidence-based event, do give evidence, and be clear and specific when you cite it.

3. Clash with the opposing arguments; more often than not I end up deciding which arguments I PREFER, rather than which ones I believe.

4. Signpost as you go. It helps me keep my flow organized.

5. Keep your impacts at the forefront.

6. Give me voters and weigh.

7. Ask questions during CX, and engage with your opponents, don't just give more speeches.

Good luck, and have fun.

Hello! My fondest memories of high school are from high school debate (PF and Congress) tournaments! I also have memories of terrible judges - I will do my best to not fall into the latter category for you.

- The faster you talk does not = the better your argument.

- It doesn't absolutely have to have been in summary for it to be in final focus, but it really should be.

- Don't card dump in rebuttal. Don't read a new contention disguised as a response. If your opponents do this call them out for it and I'll drop the argument.

- Don't ask for more evidence than you need and use this as more prep time.

- You do not need to give an off time road map, in fact, perhaps do not.

- Winning in cross does not = the more speaking time you have. Ask and answer quickly, concisely and politely.

I am a parent judge with two daughters who do debate.

1) Please speak slowly and clearly so that I can understand you.

2) Give me the entire narrative of your argument (explain your argument on all levels).

3) I would prefer if you strayed from using any debate jargon as it makes it harder for me to follow the round.

4) I will usually choose the path with the least resistance to the ballot, so make sure to make any responses you extend very clear to me.

5) Convince me why your impact is more important than your opponent's, otherwise I will have to make that decision myself.

6) I trust that both teams will have good evidence ethics, but if there is an issue, you should tell me about it.

7) Be polite and respectful.

Have fun!

● I am a volunteer judge and this is my first year.

● Speak slowly and clearly. Spreading won't help.

● Keep your own time.

● Off time road maps are preferred. Deliver organized speeches.

● Stay away from overly technical, high-leveled debate jargon.

● I do take notes throughout the round so emphasize your important contentions/points.

● Clearly state voting issues in your final speech.

Very lay judge, speak slow and have fun.

TL;DR: Don't spread, for the love of all things debate signpost, weigh WELL, I won't flow after time for speech is up. I'm not well-versed in theory or K's; you're welcome to run it but I can't guarantee I'll understand it. Won't drop you for misconstrued ev but I won't consider it in my eval of the round.

Timing: I will time the round myself. I won't tell you when time is up as you should be able to time yourself and know that, but I will stop flowing as soon as the allotted time for the speech is up, regardless of whether you are still speaking.

Speed: Speak as fast as you would like as long as you aren't spreading. Take that to LD or some other form of debate where spreading is welcome. I'll accept a speech doc if you want to spread, but if you spread without one I'll dock your speaks significantly.

Theory/Kritiks: I am not well-versed in either. Disclosure theory is fine, the rest are up to you. I don't know theory jargon/terms so please make sure to explain them. I can't guarantee I will understand how to incorporate theory and/or K's into my evaluation of the round but run it at your own risk. I really dislike theory run against opponents who aren't familiar with it - imo that's mean and an abusive way to pick up wins, I'll likely drop you if you do this. I'm generally not a fan and think this stuff belongs in other forms of debate unless you are genuinely trying to change the debate space and not just trying to use it to win.

Signposting: Hopefully the following reminder should only apply to novices - PLEASE SIGNPOST! (AKA, "In my opponents' contention 1, [tagline], they say xyz. In response, we say zyx.") In the words of my favorite debater, Dorothea Newman, signpost so much that I feel like I'm driving in a construction zone. My biggest pet peeve is not signposting. I also appreciate numbered responses and if you do this I'll give you decently high speaks. I will subtract -1 speaks if you fail to ever signpost in the round.

Weighing: Make sure to do a good job weighing, I would rather vote off of who does a better job weighing than my own personal view of impacts. Additionally - you can't just say "we win off of probability and magnitude (insert other weighing buzzwords)", you must tell me why your argument is more probable/has a greater magnitude. Something I appreciate that will bump your speaks: metaweighing.

Reasons for drops: I can and will drop you if you are racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, ableist, etc. Xoxo. Maybe if you run really abusive theory against opponents who are not familiar with theory.

Misconstrued evidence: As disclosure becomes more common within debate, we're seeing less of this, but that being said I won't drop a team for misconstrued evidence, but I will consider that piece of evidence null. It's up to me to decide if the evidence is misconstrued or not so don't automatically assume the evidence is null and void just because you claim cutting one word is misconstruing.

Extra: Make the debate interesting!! Don't just read in a monotone. Make cx lively (I don't flow it or weigh it in round at all but I do listen). A pet peeve of mine - making statement questions in crossfire. Such questions include "[insert evidence] so what do you think of that", "are you aware...", "isn't it true that...", etc. These questions are a waste of time and please try to come up with a more creative way to bring up your points.

Anyway, good luck and you're welcome to postround me if you so desire. Also more than happy to email you a picture of my annotated flows if you don't find the RFD sufficient.

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

I am a librarian and in my 7th year as a Public Forum and Parlimentary debate judge. I believe a well-presented argument relies on speaking clearly and thoughtfully, rather than rushing to present every piece of information. State your contentions clearly and use this to create a reliable, well-structured argument.

I am a Parent judge with 3 years of tournament experience. I do not flow cross and expect a civil exchange. Do not spread or I will not understand you. Emphasis on Lagos and Ethos in arguments weighted more.

Please speak at a normal rate as I am not the best auditory note taker.

I want logical arguments, hypotheticals are okay as long as they can be proven to be plausible (backed up by previous history, research about possibilities, etc.)

Please be civil and professional, you are attacking the arguments, not the speaker.

Correlation is not causation. Always relate your argument back to the topic at hand otherwise I will disregard those points.

Reemphasizing can be the key between winning and losing with me.

I'm a parent judge. I am lay, very lay, very very lay!

1. I am a parent judge. I take notes throughout the judging session. Wherever you are quoting supporting evidence, it must be reliable data source.
2. Articulate your thoughts slowly and clearly.
3. Please "Respect" the teams you are debating. No Personal attacks.
4. Please be aware of your allocated time. I would not take your information beyond allocated time
5. Please do summarize clearly in your final speech

I am a brand new parent judge, who has only judged one tournament a few years ago. So I'd appreciate it if you would go slowly and explain your arguments clearly. Please don't use debate jargon (since I won't know what it means) or take a long time to find evidence. Also please be sure to remind me of your rebuttals in your final focus. Thanks so much and good luck!

Go slow. Be clear. Be nice.

If you would like more, I have written detailed paradigms for each style I judge:

PF paradigm

Parli paradigm

Middle school paradigm

I participated in PF for 1 year and Congress for 2 years in high school, but now that I'm in college I've been out of this world for a bit.

I would appreciate clear and concise arguments, as well as demonstrations that participants have thought critically about their own arguments and their opponents'.

1. Please introduce yourselves, your team, who's going 1st/2nd.

2. I prefer clarity over speed.

3. Please be respectful to each other.

4. No grand cross every time

I am a parent judge, and my daughter does PF. I have a basic understanding of what logically makes sense. Please speak slowly and clearly. NO SPREADING, I can't understand what you're saying! If you're going to say technical terms like "scope" or "framework", explain what it means and why I should care. If your opponents drop an argument, explain why I, as a judge, would care.

I will be flowing, but please serve your arguments to me on a silver platter during summary and final focus. Speak confidently, be proud of your speech.

For both sides, if possible, include historical examples.

Have clear links supported by cards. No theories, please.

Overall, good luck! You all are gonna do great.

PUBLIC FORUM

I judge as if I were someone who reads the Economist/The Times twice a week and watches CNN or Bloomberg News on occasion. With that being said--content needs to be explained clearly and developed deeply. When it comes to the traditional argumentative structure (Claim, Warrant, Impact) you should spend about 10% of your energy on the first, 20% of your energy on the second, and 70% of your energy on impact analysis.

The constructive should be delivered clearly with frequent eye contact. The rebuttal can be line-by-line or big picture. I have no specific preference but if you are grouping arguments I need to know why those ideas can be responded to at once. As for summary speeches and final focuses should be more big picture speeches on the main topics discussed in the round. Clarity is still very important.

Please be respectful during crossfire. Nothing is accomplished through sass, anger, and talking over one another.

If sources become a major point of contention in the round, I will weigh the credibility of source A over the credibility of source B so either explain why one is more credible/preferred or I will have to make that decision myself.

Any other questions should be asked before the beginning of the round.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS

Principle > practical. I need to know why one way of thinking is preferred over another.

I am a tabula rasa judge meaning the most important thing in the round is a clear explanation of why a certain theory/philosophy/guiding principle is the best way for a person to act.

I am comfortable with speed--I just ask that you vocally signal when something you say is particularly important (i.e. a tagline or an important sentence from a card).

All other questions can be asked before the round.

EXTEMP

I judge extemp based on the following characteristics listed in order of importance: developed, well thought out content; clarity and confidence of the speaker; accurate, credible sources of information; a variety of sources (both outlets for news and types of information); physical presentation (if you are a person with a disability that impact how you move/speak please let me know before the round if you feel comfortable so that I don't unjustly and unconsciously hold that against you); creative approaches to the topic.

If you have specific questions or the event I am judging is not above, ask about those specifically before the round if you would like to receive those paradigms.

I am a parent judge. I am looking for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/her/their opponents' points. Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

Hi,

I am a parent judge who looks for a thoughtful debate in which each debater thoroughly addresses his/her/their opponents' points.

Please do not speak too quickly; I want to be able to follow along with each of your points.

I put focus on mutual respect, clarity and evidence.

Thanks and good luck

email: imeganwu@gmail.com

--

note for blue key '22: i haven't judged/coached consistently since the 2020-21 school year. please assume that i am unfamiliar with the topic, topic-specific jargon/knowledge, the current meta of debate, etc. when i judged frequently, a large majority (>~80%) of the rounds i judged involved phil fw, t/theory, or tricks to some extent. this is my wiki from senior year.

--

i debated on the national circuit for a couple years and qualified to the toc as a senior ('19). i taught at nsd flagship '19, nsd philadelphia '19, tdc '19 & '20, and legacy debate '20, and i coached hunter college high school in the '19-'20 season (see hunter sk, hunter nk). in the '20-'21 season, i coached hunter md and lindale pp. i currently attend swarthmore college ('23), where i study philosophy and math.

my coaches and biggest influences in debate: alisa liu, kris wright, katherine fennell, xavier roberts-gaal. as a debater, my favorite judges were sean fahey and mark gorthey.

in the interest of full disclosure, i am profoundly deaf in both ears and have bilateral cochlear implants. i do not believe that this significantly impacts my ability to judge, as i debated on the circuit and wasn’t horrible at it; you should be clear, give overviews, slow down for anything important, and explain to me how i should write your rfd—as you should with any judge. i will use speech docs in the 1ac/1nc, but will not in rebuttals for anything besides advocacy texts and interps. i will call clear or slow in your speech if i can’t understand you.

i do not have any preferences for style of debate; my only preference is that you debate in the way you choose, as opposed to what you think i’d like to see. i will vote for any argument so long as it is fully warranted, won, and implicated. i won’t vote on links/violations that i can’t verify. i am most familiar with philosophical framework and theory/t debates and least familiar with policy/k debate. i won’t supplement a debater’s explanation of arguments with things i know that weren’t on the flow, so it should not matter if i’m unfamiliar with literature that is read because it is the job of the debaters to fully explain and implicate their arguments—nor will i help you out even if you read a framework that i know well.

i will attempt to operate under the shared assumptions held by both debaters—e.g. if both debaters collapse to theory shells in the 2n/2a but forget to read voters, i will act as if a voter had been read rather than ignore theory and vote on a random substance extension. however, it will always be to your benefit to debate in a non-messy way: even if the 2n collapses to T, concedes substance, and it is assumed by both debaters that substance flows aff, the 2a should still quickly extend the ac. you should also attempt to extend interps & violations. the more i have to think about what the shared assumptions of the round are (and the less clear you are about your ballot story), the more your speaks will suffer.

if i am unable to determine what the shared assumption is, and if no argument has been made on the issue, i will assume the following defaults:

• theory is drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness and education are voters, fairness > education
• strength of link to weigh between layers, and theory > t > k if strength of link is irresolvable
• epistemic confidence
• presumption and permissibility negate
• tech>truth

---

ethics issues:

• evidence ethics, clipping: you need to formally stake the round for me to call tab in & i will defer to tournament policy when that happens. otherwise, i will adjudicate this like any other theory debate.
• in-round safety: if you judge that the round needs to be stopped, please ask me to and i will call the equity ombudspurson or tab in & defer to tournament procedure/tab's judgment. i am highly unlikely to stop the round unprompted, or vote on an in-round conduct issue if it is not made into a voting issue by the other debater. my policy on this is intended to place the judgment of the affected debater in higher regard than my own.

---

speaker points: higher when you utilize judge direction, make creative strategic choices rather than spamming args, and are good at cx. lower when you clearly haven't read my paradigm, comport yourself in an uncompassionate way, and read largely prewritten args. i average around 28.6 and i don't disclose speaks.

important notes, especially for west coast debaters:

• if you read reasonability without a brightline, say only that “good is good enough,” or tell me to “gut check,” i will gut check competing interps. reasonability should have a brightline that tells me how to differentiate between abusive and nonabusive scenarios.
• i would really prefer it if you read and normatively justify a rob/standard/vc, even if it's short. i tend to think that normative ethic spec is a true argument, and if neither debater indicates a framework and there is not a clear shared assumption of a certain framework, i will be forced to default to my intuitions to frame offense—which you likely don’t want because i’m not a utilitarian.
• i will vote on an rvi if won.
• i will vote on framework preclusion of impacts if won.
• i don’t care if your theory shell is frivolous. "this is frivolous" is not an argument.
• i think epistemic modesty is weird and have never understood it. (if it means strength of link, just say that instead?)
• ethos is created through persuasion/passion/showing you have a ton of knowledge about the subject—not snarky taglines and personal jabs—and good ethos never comes at the expense of safety in the round.

ask me if you have any questions (especially if you're a small school debater). good luck and have fun debating!

Hi I am a parent, and I do not have much experience. Here’s some advice from my daughter.

1. She’s your generic parent/lay judge, so keep the speed low and don’t use debate jargon.

2. My mom is a very logical person, so explain all claims and numbers because otherwise they’re just random statements that she has no reason to believe.

3. Be polite to each other (including your partner) even if you think they’re outrageously wrong. Yelling at them will not get you anywhere and it makes her dislike you more.

Please just be respectful and appreciative in general, she really tries her best to fairly judge the round!

*seating: Pro on her left side, Con on the right and please have the first speaker of each team seated closer to her, this will help in organization and to ensure you get the correct comments.

I am a parent, so a “Lay judge”.

Please signpost.

TRUTH > TECH ALWAYS

Re-stating your case is not a front-line.

New offense in 2nd Summary will not be counted.

No Kritikal or Theory debate.

Speak slow. I will reduce speaker points for going over speed limit.

Announce the start and stop for your prep-times.